Transparency and Trust: What the Public Office (Accountability) Bill means for FE

Recent years have exposed how public institutions can fail the people they serve and how the absence of candour can deepen harm when things go wrong. From the Hillsborough disaster and the Windrush scandal to the Grenfell Tower fire, these tragedies have shown how secrecy, defensiveness and failures of transparency can compound injustice.

Against this backdrop, the Government introduced the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, commonly referred to as the Hillsborough Law. Introduced by the Ministry of Justice, the Bill represents the Government’s legislative response to long-standing calls for stronger duties of candour, transparency and accountability across public bodies.

The Bill has progressed through the Committee Stage at the Commons. On 19 January 2026, the Government announced that it was delaying the remaining Commons stages, in order to resolve outstanding issues before bringing the Bill back to the House. As made clear in the Commons debate, this pause relates specifically to the Bill’s application to the intelligence services, rather than to the substance or direction of the legislation itself.

What the Bill introduces

At its core, the Public Office (Accountability) Bill introduces a statutory duty of candour and assistance. Public authorities and public officials would be required to act with candour, transparency and frankness. It necessitates proactive disclosure of relevant information, correction of errors and omissions and full cooperation with inquiries, investigations and inquests.

The Bill also introduces new criminal offences for misleading the public and replaces the common law offence of misconduct in public office with a statutory framework. In addition, it requires public authorities to promote and take steps to maintain ethical conduct throughout their organisations and strengthens participation and procedural fairness in inquiries where the conduct of a public authority is in issue.

Implications for FE institutions

A critical feature of the Government Bill is the way it defines its scope. As amended during Public Bill Committee, the Bill’s definition of ‘public authority’ expressly includes schools and further education providers, with ‘further education provider’ defined by reference to existing FE legislation across the UK.

This point is now settled. The Bill’s application to the FE sector is clear and deliberate and it is unaffected by the current delay in the Commons, which relates to national security considerations rather than education or safeguarding.

For FE institutions, this has direct implications. Colleges and other FE providers would, if the Bill is enacted, be subject to statutory duties governing how they respond to investigations, safeguarding incidents, complaints and external scrutiny.

Internal and external investigations, regulatory engagement, whistleblowing disclosures and safeguarding cases would carry heightened legal and governance significance. Senior leaders and governors would need to ensure that information provided to regulators, investigators or the public is accurate, timely and complete, particularly considering the Bill’s offences relating to misleading conduct.

Strengthening governance and culture

Boards and senior leadership teams will need to consider whether existing governance and oversight arrangements are sufficient to meet the expectations set out in the Bill. This includes staff and governor training, clear escalation pathways and robust whistleblowing mechanisms.

The Bill reinforces the importance of acting transparently when serious incidents occur, especially where student welfare or safeguarding is concerned. Prompt investigation, open communication with affected parties and cooperation with external bodies would, if enacted, carry statutory weight.

Even before the Bill completes its parliamentary passage, adopting practices aligned with its principles, such as timely disclosure, independent investigation and appropriate redress, can help institutions manage risk, support affected individuals and maintain trust.

Preparing for inquests and inquiries

FE institutions may also find themselves participating in inquests or formal inquiries where their conduct is examined. The Bill sets clear expectations around cooperation, fairness and transparency in such proceedings, alongside measures designed to support participation by affected individuals.

Ensuring that internal processes and policies align with the proposed statutory framework will be increasingly important. This may require investment in training, governance capacity and specialist advice, alongside careful attention to record-keeping and decision-making practices.

Why FE leaders should act now

Although the remaining Commons stages have been paused, the Bill’s direction of travel is clear, and its application to FE is not in question. For FE institutions, this is therefore not a moment to wait, but a moment to prepare.

Now is the appropriate time to review internal policies, governance frameworks and safeguarding arrangements, and to ensure that staff and governors understand the expectations that are likely to follow once the Bill completes its passage.

Early preparation will place institutions in a stronger position when the Bill is enacted, reducing legal and reputational risk while reinforcing trust among students, staff and the communities FE providers serve.

Looking ahead

The Public Office (Accountability) Bill marks a significant shift in how public bodies are expected to conduct themselves when institutional failings occur. For FE institutions, now clearly and deliberately within scope, it signals a move towards clearer accountability, strengthened governance and greater transparency.

While the timetable has been temporarily affected by the need to resolve issues relating to the intelligence services, the Bill’s core purpose and trajectory remain intact. This period should therefore be used to prepare, aligning governance, culture and practice with what is likely to become a new statutory baseline for public trust.

By Dr Emma Roberts, Head of Law, University of Salford